Re: [SE] comments on primer

hi

Summary: still minor fixes required on numbers 7 and 8.
I include suggested text for these two cases.

Also note that the text has changed significantly since my review, and I 
have not reviewed the new text.

Looking at:
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/SE/ODSD/20051217/
and picking up thread form Nov 2005.


Phil Tetlow wrote:
> 1. Note that David Wood suggested moving para starting "The Semantic Web
> community has ..." forward so that it is clearer what the note offers.
> 
> Agree (I think), but given that the abstract is now shorter and more
> focused on Sem Web languages, I personally think that the preamble in the
> introduction is acceptable.

OK, no further change on this one.

> 
> 2. It is unclear whether the abstract is appropriate.
> 
> Suggest the abstract is shortended to:
> 
> Domain models play a central role throughout the software development
> cycle, from requirements analysis to design, through implementation and
> beyond. As such, great progress has been made in the consistent use of
> models throughout this process. Modern software development tools with UML
> support and code generation as well as Model-Driven Architectures allow for
> developers to synchronize and verify technical implementation with user
> requirements using models - the ultimate deliverable of computer code still
> only being another form of model at the end of the day. However, there are
> still challenges which can be addressed by Semantic Web languages such as
> RDF Schema and OWL, which have been optimized to build and reason with
> domain models. This note is hence intended to act as an introduction to
> Semantic Web technologies for software developers with background in
> object-oriented languages like UML and Java. Its aim is to clarify the
> differences between RDF/OWL and object-oriented languages, and to encourage
> mainstream developers to add Semantic Web technology to their routine tool
> kit.
> 

Current abstract, which differs from above is OK

> 3. The reference [MvH 2004] should be [OWL] or similar.
> 
> Agree...
>

Fixed

> 4. The reference [MM 2004] should be [RDF] or similar.
> 
> Agree..
> 

Fixed

> 5. Suggest rephrasing of "Semantic Web languages are far more specific."
> 
> Perhaps change to "Semantic Web languages are far more formal and
> semantically precise"
>

Text has changed sufficiently since I reviewed it, that this comment 
seems to be superceded.


> 6. Suggest replace "In contrast to object-oriented languages" with
> "In contrast to many object-oriented languages"
> ("many" could be "well-known" or "most" or "some" or "several"; I prefer
> "many")
> 
> I agree with Jeremy...
>

Fixed


> 7. The para stating "In order to "attach" a property to a class" is not
> well-worded, suggest revising for greater clarity and accuracy
> 
> Suggest possibly?
> 
> In order to "attach" or "associate" a property with a class, rdfs:domain
> statements can be used. rdfs:domain is a tag from the RDF Schema namespace
> that relates a property to a class using predication. In the example above,
> the domain of hasPrice is Product. As such, from an object-oriented point
> of view this would mean that all instances of the Product class could have
> price values associated with them, hence making Price a Product attribute.
> However, in RDF and OWL this also has additional connotations: any resource
> that is the object of hasPrice, (i.e. normally a dicreet price value), must
> also relate to the subject of Product. In other words, a domain statement
> in RDF can be used to classify value instances. Therefore, pointing back to
> the above example, if something has a price, then it can be handled as an
> instance of Product, even if it partakes in other declarations (or triples)
> - a crutial matter that will be discussed in more detail later in the
> context of reasoning with OWL.
> 
> 

Not OK. (Sorry I should have commented on this proposed fix earlier)

Current text reads:
[[
In order to "attach" or "associate" a property with a class, rdfs:domain 
statements can be used. rdfs:domain is a tag from the RDF Schema 
namespace that relates a property to a class using predication. In the 
example above, the domain of hasPrice is Product. As such, from an 
object-oriented point of view this would mean that all instances of the 
Product class could have price values associated with them, hence making 
Price a Product attribute. However, in RDF and OWL this also has 
additional connotations: any resource that is the object of hasPrice, 
(i.e. normally a discrete price value), must also relate to the subject 
of Product. In other words, a domain statement in RDF can be used to 
classify value instances. Therefore, pointing back to the above example, 
if something has a price, then it can be handled as an instance of 
Product, even if it partakes in other declarations (or triples) - a 
crutial matter that will be discussed in more detail later in the 
context of reasoning with OWL.
]]
==>
my suggestion
[[
In order to "attach" or "associate" a property with a class, rdfs:domain 
statements can be used. rdfs:domain is a tag from the RDF Schema 
namespace that relates a property to a class using predication. In the 
example above, the domain of hasPrice is Product. As such, from an 
object-oriented point of view this would mean that all instances of the 
Product class could have price values associated with them, hence making 
Price a Product attribute. However, in RDF and OWL this also has 
additional connotations: any resource that is the subject of hasPrice
is an instance of the Product class. In other words, a domain statement 
in RDF can be used to classify instances. Therefore, pointing back to 
the above example, if something has a price, then it can be handled as 
an instance of Product, even if it partakes in other declarations (or 
triples) - a crucial matter that will be discussed in more detail later 
in the context of reasoning with OWL.
]]

The current text (as well as spelling on "crucial", confuses domain and 
range. Domain makes no comment whatsoever about the object of hte 
hasPrice triple.


> 8. The use of RDF Individual in Figure 6 is useful but misleading, in
> that RDF does not provide such a class. owl:Thing is perhaps the
> closest. Perhaps the best thing is simply to leave the figure as is but
> add a footnote to the effect that RDF Individual is introduced in this
> note for explanatory purposes.
> 
> Agree

Not fixed. Please fix it. e.g.
[[
As illustrated in Figure 4, a typical object model to represent Semantic 
Web ontologies would contain classes to represent resources, classes, 
properties and individuals.
]]
==>
[[
As illustrated in Figure 4, a typical object model to represent Semantic 
Web ontologies would contain classes to represent resources, classes, 
properties and individuals. Note that the terms RDFSClass and 
RDFProperty relate to the classes rdfs:Class and rdf:Property defined in
RDF Schema, whereas the term RDFIndividual has no direct counterpart
defined in RDF Schema.
]]

> 
> Holger...hope this helps
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 11 January 2006 13:36:50 UTC